I am a Social Researcher working in an in-house research role within the Department for Work and Pensions. Our team use a range of qualitative research methods to understand how policies and services land in practice - experiences and perspectives that numbers alone cannot capture. It is rewarding work, though the challenge of communicating its value to wider audiences is something many qualitative researchers will recognise.
The SRA hosted a webinar on ‘Quality in Qualitative Research’ in March 2026. It was valuable to hear from speakers with different but complementary perspectives. We heard from Professor Karen O’Reilly, an experienced qualitative methods trainer and sociologist, and from Dr Jonah Bury, a leading evaluation and research consultant. This blog outlines some reflections from the webinar and why it has resonated with me.
Why this webinar caught my attention
Many qualitative researchers will recognise this moment: you present a nuanced finding, and a colleague responds by asking how many people said it, or whether someone else would have interpreted the data the same way.
These are not unreasonable questions - but they often reflect a mismatch between what qualitative research is designed to do and how it is being judged. This came up recently at a government social research learning day, where colleagues were grappling with the same challenge.
The wrong kind of questions
Karen O’Reilly opened with a list of challenges she has encountered in her career regarding the value of qualitative research. These may be familiar to many:
“How is this objective?”
“How can I convince clients that this is worthwhile with such small numbers?”
“Aren’t these just anecdotes?”
These questions will feel familiar to many qualitative researchers - and if I am honest, I have asked some of them myself earlier in my career. They are not hostile questions - for many of us, they are simply the questions we learned to ask first. Coming from a social statistics background, much of my early training was rooted in quantitative methods, with quality assessed through the lens of measurement and replication. Moving into qualitative research meant actively unlearning some of that framing - and recognising that different kinds of research call for different kinds of judgement.
What struck me about O'Reilly's response was its generosity. Rather than dismissing these questions, she took them seriously - and used them to make a case for why qualitative research needs its own framework for quality, rather than a borrowed one. That felt like a more productive starting point than simply pushing back.
Where can we find the quality?
O’Reilly’s answer to ‘where is the quality?’ was a highlight of the webinar, arguing that the quality in qualitative research is built upon:
Complexity – understanding the contexts and complex histories that shape how people think and make decisions
Surprises – findings that challenge your assumptions and stereotypes, as well as those that lead your research into an unexpected direction
Depth and richness – gaining a genuine understanding of the emotions and meanings behind people’s choices
Attentiveness – the researcher actively listens to the participant and probes what is difficult or unclear
Rapport – building a trusting relationship with the participant, allowing for perspectives and insights that would otherwise be challenging to gather
Reflecting on these qualities, I found myself thinking about interviews and focus groups my team has conducted. Some of our most valuable findings were not the ones we anticipated - they emerged because a participant took the conversation in an unexpected direction, or because enough trust had been built to allow something important to surface. Those moments cannot be planned for. They are the product of skill, preparation, and genuine attentiveness - and they are precisely where the quality lives.
At its best, qualitative research gives voice to experiences that might otherwise go unrecorded. It surfaces what is often overlooked. That feels like a strong, simple case for why this work matters.
Quality as an ethical responsibility
Jonah Bury brought a clear, grounding perspective by highlighting that qualitative findings have consequences: they shape how groups of people are described and understood; influence what becomes evidence in policy; and help determine whether funding for programmes continues, scales up or closes.
For Bury, this means quality in qualitative research is not just a methodological question - it is an ethical one. He identified two qualities that matter most when research informs decisions:
Sincerity is about honesty - being open about how the research was done, what its limits are, and where the findings are less certain.
Credibility is about evidence - showing that conclusions are rooted in what participants actually said and did, that analytical choices are explained, and that diverse voices have been included.
Without sincerity and credibility, quality suffers - and the stakes are tangible. People can be misrepresented, decisions poorly informed, and trust in research undermined.
This framing resonated with my work within government, where delivering clear and actionable findings is both a priority and a responsibility. Bury's argument was a useful reminder that holding onto complexity - and being honest about it - is not a weakness. It is part of what makes the research worth trusting.
Discussion
The presentations sparked a rich discussion, with questions that will resonate with many qualitative researchers. Attendees raised practical challenges - how to advocate for qualitative work to sceptical audiences, how to manage consent sensitively, and how to shape a topic guide that is both structured and responsive.
I raised a question of my own: how do we balance sincerity - being fully honest about uncertainty and limitations - with setting realistic expectations for participants about how their contributions will be used? It is a tension I encounter in practice. Participants invest time and often share personal experiences. Yet the reality of applied research is that findings do not always lead to immediate policy change. Some findings inform decisions further down the line, feeding into a broader evidence base whose impact may not be visible for some time. Being honest about that reality - without leaving participants feeling their contribution was without purpose - is something I find myself thinking about regularly.
It was encouraging to see this tension acknowledged openly. There are no simple answers, but it was reassuring to hear that these are challenges that others are navigating, too.
What I took away – and what I am still considering
Perhaps the most important thing I took away is that quality in qualitative research needs to be assessed on its own terms - not measured against standards designed for a different kind of work. It depends on context, on judgement, and on a genuine sense of responsibility to the people whose lives and experiences we are representing.
Alongside that came a practical shift in thinking. Instead of defending qualitative research for what it is not, we can redirect the conversation towards what it uniquely offers - the depth, nuance, and human insight that other methods cannot capture.
I would be interested to hear how others manage this. Are there frameworks or ways of talking about quality that have worked well in your context? And are there aspects of this topic you feel deserve more attention